What is equality to you?

[Cyclone 10]

On 01/03/2019 at 09:02, Waldo said:

Yeah, I feel 'snowflake' is also a derogatory term directed exclusively at white people, even the name itself suggests white. As I understand it, a snowflake is someone who objects to what they consider an injustice, that is relatively minor in contrast to the injustices other people have to endure. If that's what snowflake means, then yes, I am doing exactly that, in pointing out I feel 'white privilege' is something of a racial slur.

 

It is a very minor thing of course, but that does not make it right to berate white people; any more than it is to berate non-white people. If people want to ridicule me (not suggesting anyone has) because I feel the term 'white privilege' is somewhat of a slur, feel free.

 

Of course, by objecting to the term itself, I am not denying that the thing described by 'white privilege' exists, or excusing (some) white people's role in creating such a condition in the first place. I am merely applying the same standard to all people, that we all deserve to be treat as individuals and not wholesale tarred by the same brush according to our race.

 

Anyhow, apologies, I seem to be getting off track.

 

If I seem to be missing the point regarding positive action, it's perhaps because I've not applied my attention to it, as yet.

 

Your last paragraph in post #242 Cyclone, I completely agree with.

Snow is white, do you think that's racist?

Snowflake is an insult used primarily to describe millenials when they aren't happy about things like average house prices having increased to 6* average income, or the unfairness of the gig economy.  Ironically though the description of someone who is easily offended by things often more accurately applies to the people who are using that insult.  If you're trying to find a racial overtone to be offended by then you're, well, snowflaking, looking for offence.

White privilege is not a racial slur.  Acknowledging that white people in the UK have inherent privilege compared to every other ethnic background is just seeing things for how they are.  It isn't an example of prejudice, it isn't an insult.

Recognising privilege is not berating you or white people.

We've been discussing positive action for what, 4 pages, and you now say that you've not bothered to find out what it is?  Wow.

On 01/03/2019 at 15:49, WiseOwl182 said:

Are you deliberately being awkward? You don't know for sure that he's never being discriminated against. As I said l, I'm a white male and I have been verbally racially abused in the past, so if you made the same assumption about me, you'd have been wrong. You can't assume to know what other people have been through based on a broad assumption of which categories you feel are more advantaged.

I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have suffered less racism than someone who isn't white.

You can probably remember this one incident, maybe even two incidents of racist abuse.  For non-white people it can be a daily thing.  Can you see the massive difference there or are you just going to be deliberately awkward and pretend you can't?

[WiseOwl182 10]

11 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have suffered less racism than someone who isn't white.

You can probably remember this one incident, maybe even two incidents of racist abuse.  For non-white people it can be a daily thing.  Can you see the massive difference there or are you just going to be deliberately awkward and pretend you can't?

That wasn't your assumption though. You assumed white males suffered no discrimination. Not less; none.

[Cyclone 10]

Should have added the word significant.  But if that's the best you've got to argue on then I think my point is proven.

[WiseOwl182 10]

17 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Should have added the word significant.  But if that's the best you've got to argue on then I think my point is proven.

Or you could just admit you were wrong.

[Waldo 96]

@Cyclone

 

Well, still waiting to have the points I raised in #240 addressed....

 

If it's about helping those how lack privilege, why don't we quantify what privilege is, and have schemes designed specifically to help those INDIVIDUALS who lack it?

 

Rather that the assumption that because, say black folk, experience more general predjudice in life we should be running initiatives to get all black people in to work (some of whom may well be far more privileged than some white folk, who will not qualify for such schemes because they're unfortunately white).

 

Doing it that way is innately unfair. You need to assess people on an individual basis, because that's what we are. individuals.

[danot 10]

6 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I wouldn't be wrong to assume that you have suffered less racism than someone who isn't white.

You can probably remember this one incident, maybe even two incidents of racist abuse.  For non-white people it can be a daily thing.  Can you see the massive difference there or are you just going to be deliberately awkward and pretend you can't?

Whites who abuse none whites are colour prejudice, not racist.

And believe me, there are plenty of none whites who are colour prejudice.  Now, racism, that's way more complex.

[Halibut 12]

3 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

That wasn't your assumption though. You assumed white males suffered no discrimination. Not less; none.

 

8 minutes ago, danot said:

Whites who abuse none whites are colour prejudice, not racist.

And believe me, there are plenty of none whites who are colour prejudice.  Now, racism, that's way more complex.

And there we have it - from the master of the nonsensical logic bend - ''Whites who abuse none whites are colour prejuidice, not racist''.

What the heck is that supposed to mean then?

[danot 10]

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

 

And there we have it - from the master of the nonsensical logic bend - ''Whites who abuse none whites are colour prejuidice, not racist''.

What the heck is that supposed to mean then?

Are you being serious or Halibutesque?

[Halibut 12]

5 minutes ago, danot said:

Are you being serious or Halibutesque?

Explain what your comment means.

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

Explain what your comment means.

Racists  discriminate against other races, maybe adopting feelings of superiority over other races, while a person who is colour prejudice looks no further than skin tone. 

 

Trust me, I know these things.  You really ought to have googled it before doing an Halibut, Halibut. 

 

 

[PRESLEY 1,224]

I wear the trousers in our house because mi wife says I can.  

[Halibut 12]

23 minutes ago, danot said:

Racists  discriminate against other races, maybe adopting feelings of superiority over other races, while a person who is colour prejudice looks no further than skin tone. 

 

Trust me, I know these things.  You really ought to have googled it before doing an Halibut, Halibut. 

 

 

Load of tosh. Means nowt.